Air Force Serious Target For AAC

---He is anti oil..??? WOW... We (the USA) are now producing more oil than ever including 2008.... We are importing less foreign oil than in a long time including 2008. The price of oil is up again and oil company profits are very high.... and even Midland which in in the Texas oil fields has the lowest unemployment rate in Texas.. sometimes under 4%.. 4.1% last month... and this is one of the lowest in the nation. Come out and look around and see what is going on..

---Meanwhile we have some ultra-right people claiming he is driving up the price of oil and gasoline which by the way aids oil companies..... Which is it...?? You can't have it both ways.... Friend or foe of oil companies... or just neutral.. Answer with an honest answer... WHICH..!!!

---Yes he does support alternative energy sources.... lots of wind generators out here too... Even T.Boone Pickens (oil man) supports them... I listened to him in person not long ago.

---Give us some input on this contradiction you have... I suspect you just listen to some ultra conservative such as Rush who would not know the truth it it hit him in the face... By the way Rush a total of one hour of college credit.. (PE)... He failed all his other courses and attended a full year.

--For it is worth 4% unemployment is pretty much zero..... those left usually have criminal and drug problems.. A friend of mine who works for an oil company said they had 40 applicants for some positions they had available.... all 40 failed the background and/or drug tests.

---You make stuff up (or don't know) ... the pipeline was first vetoed because of the first route was more expensive and faced a lot of protests from landowners and others and even some oil companies didn't like it either. That was stated at the time... and not just since he approved the second route. I am sure Fox never reported that though.

I love owning oil stock... never been a better time. the worst time to be in the oil business was during the 80's.. Reagan years. Many went broke including Gulf Oil.

...

Your wrong. He can't be for the US oil companies because they're all shills of the Bush administration, remember? Which is it? You can't have it both ways?

Rick

Your wrong. He can't be for the US oil companies because they're all shills of the Bush administration, remember? Which is it? You can't have it both ways?

Rick

How about an honest meaningful answer instead of a joke.

Sounds a whole lot like some hairbrained claim of Rush about the those who didn't support the administration then..

Edited March 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

"Obama tries to spread blame on Solyndra, Keystone"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/obama-tries-to-spread-blame-on-solyndra-keystone/

"...Obama seems to be in the midst of a creeping climb-down on the subject, but he has to move slowly.

Remember, many liberals dislike the project because it would provide so much oil to gasoline refineries. The cheaper gas is for American drivers, the more gasoline they will use. Environmentalists believe all this driving is causing the earth's atmosphere to become dangerously warm.

Obama, who is a long-time crusader against global warming, has suffered politically for his opposition to the pipeline. Global warming has faded as a concern for voters amid a lengthy economic disruption and with new doubts about the most alarming claims made by carbon hawks. With gasoline prices more than twice as high as they were when Obama took office, consumers are far less indulgent of Obama's environmental policies.

The president's point in Cushing is that while he won't allow the top of the pipeline to go where the oil is, he has chosen not to block pipeline expansions at the southern end. This, of course, makes folks in the energy business furious. To have the president demanding credit for not blocking domestic pipeline upgrades is galling to them. They need executive blessing to cross the international border with Canada, but for domestic jobs they mostly just need Obama not to interfere and allow the permitting process to work as in the past.

The Obama campaign and White House have both made clear that the part of the pipeline that goes to the oil may yet be approved. The problem, they say, is that Republicans hurried the process. Again, Obama is seeking bipartisan blame...."

Rick

"Obama tries to spread blame on Solyndra, Keystone"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/obama-tries-to-spread-blame-on-solyndra-keystone/

"...Obama seems to be in the midst of a creeping climb-down on the subject, but he has to move slowly.

Remember, many liberals dislike the project because it would provide so much oil to gasoline refineries. The cheaper gas is for American drivers, the more gasoline they will use. Environmentalists believe all this driving is causing the earth's atmosphere to become dangerously warm.

Obama, who is a long-time crusader against global warming, has suffered politically for his opposition to the pipeline. Global warming has faded as a concern for voters amid a lengthy economic disruption and with new doubts about the most alarming claims made by carbon hawks. With gasoline prices more than twice as high as they were when Obama took office, consumers are far less indulgent of Obama's environmental policies.

The president's point in Cushing is that while he won't allow the top of the pipeline to go where the oil is, he has chosen not to block pipeline expansions at the southern end. This, of course, makes folks in the energy business furious. To have the president demanding credit for not blocking domestic pipeline upgrades is galling to them. They need executive blessing to cross the international border with Canada, but for domestic jobs they mostly just need Obama not to interfere and allow the permitting process to work as in the past.

The Obama campaign and White House have both made clear that the part of the pipeline that goes to the oil may yet be approved. The problem, they say, is that Republicans hurried the process. Again, Obama is seeking bipartisan blame...."

Rick

PS: I am not Liberal..... Financial Liberals are people who spend a whole lot more than they take in... not me... that happened between 2001-2009... the national debt doubled or equaling the previous 200 years and 42 earlier administations..... so who were the liberals then {financially} ... I am not talking about religious conservatives.. they win that one, some people just aren't Christian enough. .. but they were financial liberals which has put our country into a big mess. .

--Gasoline price.. your comment is very distorted... I paid $4.00 a gallon often on my vacation trip in the summer of 2008 before the election.. then the prices dropped that fall because of all the economic crisis.. let us be completely honest about things and not cherry pick numbers.

--There is Global warming... every glacier in Alaska, (hundreds of them.. been there twice lately) is decreasing in size except four and they are growing because they are at mouths of rivers and getting water that melts upstream... Is man is cause..??. that is the big question.. maybe and maybe not.. may just be natural variation... You are claiming a lot of misleading facts there too... but Fox is very good at that if that is all you listen to.

..

Edited March 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

The poll had 5% more Democrats than Republicans.

If they asked if they would vote for Obama vs. The Greatest Republican Ever, Obama would still lead the poll.

Oh right, because nobody ever votes outside their party?

Want me to show you the poll that had Obama over Romney 12 points in Ohio then?

And speaking of pandering, here's a hint at the real Mitt Romney and how he will pander to the left if he wins the nomination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/mitt-romney-etch-a-sketch_n_1369769.html?ref=mostpopular

..."I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,....it's almost like an Etch a Sketch"...

Rick

---Pat Roberson is a conservative "Christian???" and GOP supporter (once ran for President). Today he is hoping (and praying I bet) that Peyton Manning gets injured this year... why... because he replaced Tim Tebow. Disgusting... of course this is the same guy that said 9-11 was punishment from God for our sinful ways... I am absolutely Christian but these extreme religious radical conservatives drive me nuts.

---Is that really showing a Christian attitude..

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/pat-robertson-believes-peyton-manning-hurt-142935112.html

And speaking of pandering, here's a hint at the real Mitt Romney and how he will pander to the left if he wins the nomination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/mitt-romney-etch-a-sketch_n_1369769.html?ref=mostpopular

..."I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,....it's almost like an Etch a Sketch"...

Rick

Yep... the GOP candidates are brillant.

Yep... the GOP candidates are brillant.

So, what would you say about the intelligence level of the guy sitting in the big chair in the oval office these days? Just sayin.......the guys no rocket scientist!

Just sayin.......the guys no rocket scientist!

Which is exactly why I'll be voting for Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2012!

Which is exactly why I'll be voting for Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2012!

So, what would you say about the intelligence level of the guy sitting in the big chair in the oval office these days? Just sayin.......the guys no rocket scientist!

True....He doesn't have a degree in rocket science.... He has a law degree from Harvard and was editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated JD Magna Cum Laude which is a doctorate degree. Do you have one?

Edited March 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

Is this racist or not?

---Pat Roberson is a conservative "Christian???" and GOP supporter (once ran for President). Today he is hoping (and praying I bet) that Peyton Manning gets injured this year... why... because he replaced Tim Tebow. Disgusting... of course this is the same guy that said 9-11 was punishment from God for our sinful ways... I am absolutely Christian but these extreme religious radical conservatives drive me nuts.

---Is that really showing a Christian attitude..

http://sports.yahoo....-142935112.html

Next New Orleans Saints D.C.?

Is this racist or not?

Yes. I too am tired of the stereotype that all black people become astro-physicists.

Yes. I too am tired of the stereotype that all black people become astro-physicists.

about:---- I'm in love...wish it was still 1964

That song you listed is in French.... some here will hate you including Rick.....hahahaha

..

Edited March 23, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

about:---- I'm in love...wish it was still 1964

That song you listed is in French.... some here will hate you including Rick.....hahahaha

Francoise Hardy is one of the 5 most beautiful women to ever inhabit this mortal coil.

about:---- I'm in love...wish it was still 1964

That song you listed is in French.... some here will hate you including Rick.....hahahaha

..

I could listen to people speak Spanish all day. I can listen to French for about 3 minutes.

How about an honest meaningful answer instead of a joke.

Good idea. So then how bout after 10+ threads you finally answer this question -

I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website.

...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number?

...regarding Rick listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, it is rather interesting that you do that on the same page where you're regurgitating White House talking points. The facts when you drill down from the White House provided headline are rather different.

Obama has shut down, shut off, and canceled more oil drilling than any President since Carter.

After the BP oil spill last year, Obama shut down all offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, idling 78,000 jobs and cutting off billions of dollars of tax revenue to state and local governments in the Gulf Coast region.

After U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman found the Gulf moratorium without factual basis, Obama lifted it, granted no permits, then reinstated the same moratorium. The same judge then found the second moratorium illegal and held the administration in contempt of court for ignoring the first order.

Seven drilling rigs have left the Gulf for friendlier waters.

Obama also reversed the Bush plan to sell leases off the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and around Alaska, even rescinding leases already granted and paid for in Alaskan waters.

It's not just oil drilling that Obama opposes. His actions say he opposes all energy development.

A recent study by the American Consumer Institute concludes that coal, natural gas, nuclear, transmission infrastructure, and even renewables were among 351 energy projects delayed or canceled by Obama. These projects represented 1.9 million jobs and an investment of $1.1 trillion.

Record drilling under Obama?

Domestic oil production increased until the BP spill because of Bush's pro-drilling policy. In 2011, the Energy Information Administration estimates, the U.S. has seen a decline in production of 220,000 barrels a day, and it projects a reduction of 150 million barrels in 2012 from the Gulf.

Good idea. So then how bout after 10+ threads you finally answer this question -

I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website.

...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number?

...regarding Rick listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, it is rather interesting that you do that on the same page where you're regurgitating White House talking points. The facts when you drill down from the White House provided headline are rather different.

Obama has shut down, shut off, and canceled more oil drilling than any President since Carter.

After the BP oil spill last year, Obama shut down all offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, idling 78,000 jobs and cutting off billions of dollars of tax revenue to state and local governments in the Gulf Coast region.

After U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman found the Gulf moratorium without factual basis, Obama lifted it, granted no permits, then reinstated the same moratorium. The same judge then found the second moratorium illegal and held the administration in contempt of court for ignoring the first order.

Seven drilling rigs have left the Gulf for friendlier waters.

Obama also reversed the Bush plan to sell leases off the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and around Alaska, even rescinding leases already granted and paid for in Alaskan waters.

It's not just oil drilling that Obama opposes. His actions say he opposes all energy development.

A recent study by the American Consumer Institute concludes that coal, natural gas, nuclear, transmission infrastructure, and even renewables were among 351 energy projects delayed or canceled by Obama. These projects represented 1.9 million jobs and an investment of $1.1 trillion.

Record drilling under Obama?

Domestic oil production increased until the BP spill because of Bush's pro-drilling policy. In 2011, the Energy Information Administration estimates, the U.S. has seen a decline in production of 220,000 barrels a day, and it projects a reduction of 150 million barrels in 2012 from the Gulf.

---Your comments are so far off...... The USA is producing more oil than ever before [Midland Newspaper, oilfield town] and importing less than than in many years... maybe decades. The situation is insane out here... to say he opposes drilling is crazy... maybe some projects but not in general. Opposes ALL energy development... that makes zero sense... we need it... plus West Texas is now full of wind generators, many constructed in past 3-4 years, and a lot of the electricity is headed for Dallas-Ft. Worth. The pipeline veto was all about the route not about having a pipeline...

---Yes drilling was shut down in the Gulf... there seems to be some justification.... one big mess and BP was not the least bit honest about how much was escaping... It has resumed. How many jobs were lost in OTHER industries.. tourism, fishing etc. when the well blew up... You forgot to mention that one. I have no idea where you got that last statement..... Everything out here in West Texas oil filed states the opposite. It may be right about the Gulf a bit....but check out West Texas and North Dakota and the TOTAL in the USA... it is up a lot. it is a lot cheaper to drill on land than in water 1000's of feet deep, that likely explains a lot of it. The Nuke disaster in Japan has slowed that down... people are very uneasy about that.

---My objection to the 2001 tax cut is completely about the ultra wealthy paying 15% which is less than most of us are paying on much of our income .. likely you as well..... and you seem to think that is fair. Check how much you would pay on an additional $100... likely 25-35%, I am.

---I teach stats... your stat about 16% paying 34% is likely correct... but so many may pay about nothing... let us us look at who they are: the extremely poor, the physically impared, often retired people who are no longer working much if any, and even people just out of high school [maybe still in high school] filing and earning very little... My kids as college and high school students did file tax forms to get refunds but paid about nothing as they went to school... This (a lot not paying) is a rather odd stat about so few paying because of who is included. It isn't exactly as it first appears.

---Apparently you have no problem with paying 25-35% on the top part of your income while those earning millions on Wall Street just pay 15%. Not picking on Romney... because he just did what was legal but he paid 16% on his millions made ... mostly investment income... he wasn't going to work everyday which likely you are. ...

____

Carter...??. good grief...!!. I lived in Midland then ... we had a huge oil boom going on out here mostly as the result of OPEC and the Iran situation... You must not been alive then... it was crazy out here.... even more than now. Even W. Bush lived here then and was in oil business. You need to check real facts. Whatever sourse you are using is totally false. Besides very little drilling existed in Reagan era as oil companies went broke due to drop in price as OPEC opened up the pipes again. [ includes Gulf Oil, a giant ] I am sure very few projects were axed for several years... few had any projects..

---

Edited March 27, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

---Your comments are so far off...... The USA is producing more oil than ever before [Midland Newspaper, oilfield town] and importing less than than in many years... maybe decades.

Did you really just cite the Midland Newspaper to refute a government agency?

---Your comments are so far off...... The USA is producing more oil than ever before [Midland Newspaper, oilfield town] and importing less than than in many years... maybe decades. The situation is insane out here... to say he opposes drilling is crazy... maybe some projects but not in general. Opposes ALL energy development... that makes zero sense... we need it... plus West Texas is now full of wind generators, many constructed in past 3-4 years, and a lot of the electricity is headed for Dallas-Ft. Worth. The pipeline veto was all about the route not about having a pipeline...

The facts are that under the Obama administration, federal drilling is down 11%. Facts are that the private & state lands are producing the oil increases. Facts are that his numbers are through 2010. Since 2010, there has been a drop, and the federal numbers haven't caught up, but the industry numbers sure have.

A recently released (and revised) report from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that whether 'America is producing more oil' depends on which land is being drilled.

The EIA report revealed a 12-percent decline in production for coal, oil, and natural gas on federal and Indian lands from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2011, its lowest point in nine years.

Yet during that same time frame, production on state and private lands has increased, boosting overall production numbers for the United States.

While oil and gas production is up in the United States on private and state land, it is down on federal land, which falls under President Obama's direction.

Here are four more steps Obama has taken to limit U.S. oil production:

Withdrew areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and natural gas.

Cancelled lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and delayed exploration off the coast of Alaska and kept other resource-rich areas off-limits.

Finalized rules, first announced by Secretary Salazar on January 6, 2010, to establish more government hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands.

Withdrew 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change.

I have no doubt production on private land in West Texas is up. GREAT!!! ...but this Administration IS actively blocking energy production that it can control under current regulation and law. It is clear as day.

...and the Pipeline route was modified in a way that made all interested parties satisfied, yet it was still struck down. Sorry, but that argument simply doesn't hold water.

--Yes drilling was shut down in the Gulf... there seems to be some justification.... one big mess and BP was not the least bit honest about how much was escaping... It has resumed. How many jobs were lost in OTHER industries.. tourism, fishing etc. when the well blew up... You forgot to mention that one. I have no idea where you got that last statement..... Everything out here in West Texas oil filed states the opposite. It may be right about the Gulf a bit....but check out West Texas and North Dakota and the TOTAL in the USA... it is up a lot. it is a lot cheaper to drill on land than in water 1000's of feet deep, that likely explains a lot of it.

The 10 year disaster in the gulf is virtually a non issue now about a year after the accident. The Gulf's economic driver is the Oil Industry. Without them, the other supporting industries don't thrive. You can't shut down the single biggest economic driver in a region and not have massive impact in related or supporting fields. We should resume drilling in the gulf YESTERDAY if not sooner.

I got my last statement from the EIA.

--My objection to the 2001 tax cut is completely about the ultra wealthy paying 15% which is less than most of us are paying on much of our income .. likely you as well..... and you seem to think that is fair. Check how much you would pay on an additional $100... likely 25-35%, I am.

Based on the percentage of the burden they already cover, I think it is MORE than fair. FAIR would be we all pay the exact same rate or percentage of income, from top to bottom on EVERY DOLLAR so everyone has a vested interest in what the government is doing with OUR money. You in?

--I teach stats... your stat about 16% paying 34% is likely correct... but so many may pay about nothing... let us us look at who they are: the extremely poor and often retired people who are no longer working much if any, and even people just out of high school [maybe still in high school] filing and earning very little... My kids as college and high school students did file tax forms to get refunds but paid about nothing as they went to school... This (a lot not paying) is a rather odd stat about so few paying because of who is included. It isn't exactly as it first appears.

Well, it is actually, as it accounts for the fact that nearly 50% of the population pay nothing. Note, the stat is the top 1% of income earners earn 16% of the income, yet pay 34% of the burden, more than twice as a percentage of what they earn. So, if the top 1% percent are earning paying 36%, the middle 49% of us are paying the remaining 64% of the burden while virtually half the population pay nothing. ...yet YOU seem to think THAT is fair?!?

FWIW, my numbers come from www.irs.gov.

--Apparently you have no problem with paying 25-35% on the top part of your income while those earning millions on Wall Street just pay 15%. Not picking on Romney... because he just did what was legal but he paid 16% on his millions made ... mostly investment income... he wasn't going to work everyday which likely you are. ...

Well, he already paid taxes on the money he invested when he earned it. I have no problem with him paying a lower rate when he invested it. I base this statement not on some utopian ideal of what is fair and unfair, but rather on my understanding of simple economics and the history of our tax system. When guys like Mr. Romney are paying a lower rate, they invest more and thus more opportunity exists for guys like me and others to find jobs, get money for starting businesses, take economic advantage of an innovation, etc. In addition, while they are paying at a lower rate, since they invest more, the Treasury has MORE income from investment activity. The numbers, facts and history back up my position rather than some subjective measurement of fairness.

...but I must admit myself disappointed. Lots of text, but you still didn't answer the question. In case you missed it, let me put it here again -

If the Rich aren't paying enough then how much SHOULD They be paying?

Sorry to take the jab at you but I always find it amazing that those who beat the drum that the rich should pay more can NEVER answer this very simple and basic question. When is enough enough? How much MORE are you comfortable confiscating? Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total tax burden? 60%? When does confiscating more and more of someone's wealth become wrong?

Carter...??. good grief...!!. I lived in Midland then ... we had a huge oil boom going on out here mostly as the result of OPEC and the Iran situation... You must not been alive then... it was crazy out here.... even more than now. Even W. Bush lived here then and was in oil business. You need to check real facts. Whatever sourse you are using is totally false.

EIA is who my source is. ...and basing your global or national understanding of the oil business based on what is going on in Midland, Texas is a bit narrow-minded.

Did you really just cite the Midland Newspaper to refute a government agency?

yep.... The stats that are stated in the local paper are from the US Energy dept. and from the Texas RR. Commission, both government agencies..

very current.

..

Edited March 27, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

EIA is who my source is. ...and basing your global or national understanding of the oil business based on what is going on in Midland, Texas is a bit narrow-minded.

Domestic oil production is up under Obama, whether he can "take credit" for it or not, he can't take any blame for some false narrative that his administration does everything in its power to stop domestic drilling.

So whats your hard-on for drilling on federal land anyways?